A Cheap Shot from Khairy

[1] Campaigning in Johor, Khairy Jamaluddin cried “Islamophobia” over Pakatan Harapan’s warning that a vote for BN could usher in a “Green Wave” of PAS influence. He said, “They are claiming there is a ‘Green Wave’, and that voting for BN means getting PAS… I see this as a form of campaigning that is rather Islamophobic.” [1]

[2] It is nothing of the sort – and he knows it. There is nothing Islamophobic about calling attention to the very real threat posed by PAS. The concern has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with PAS itself.

[3] For decades, PAS leaders have made no secret of their ambition to replace Malaysia’s constitutional order with their own version of an Islamic state – a vision fundamentally at odds with the nation’s founding charter and its multicultural character. They have pressed consistently for an expanded role for syariah including its possible application to non-Muslims, questioned whether non-Muslims are fit to hold the country’s highest offices, cast them as a source of national corruption, and opposed the very policies many regard as essential to equality in a plural society.

[4] At a time when minority rights are already under pressure from religious zealots who want to impose dress codes, restrict entertainment and place other conditions on non-Muslims, the political agenda of PAS is rightly seen as a clear and present danger. The sobering example of theocratic systems elsewhere – the bigotry and intolerance of diversity, the curtailment of fundamental rights, the harsh punishments – only increases these worries.

[5] And this is the party that Khairy would have Johor’s voters wave through without a second thought? To alert voters to the dangers PAS poses is not bigotry; it is a defence of the constitution and of the plural, democratic Malaysia the rest of us still believe in.

[6] And here is the inconvenient truth Khairy glides past: if PAS is so benign, why is UMNO itself so insistent that it will neither work with PAS nor form a government with it? Khairy cannot have it both ways – attack others for highlighting the dangers that PAS poses while his own party keeps its distance from PAS. It is clear that UMNO realises it is not in its interest to be seen to be too close to PAS for fear it would drive away non-Muslim voters. The whole Islamophobia accusation is simply meant to shut down further discussion on the matter. There can be little doubt, however, that if UMNO does not obtain an outright majority, it will quickly find common cause with PAS. In that sense, Pakatan Harapan is right: a vote for BN might well be a vote for PAS.  

[7] Whatever happens, it looks like the politician who was more moderate in the political wilderness is now reverting to his UMNO persona — playing the Islamophobia card and warning of threats to Malay rights. It smacks of political opportunism, entirely unworthy of a man of Khairy’s intellect.

[Dennis Ignatius |Kuala Lumpur |10 July 2026]

[1] KJ labels Harapan’s ‘Green Wave’ campaign ‘Islamophobic’ |Malaysiakini |09 July 2026

A Leader in Denial

Is the past finally catching up with Anwar?

[1] There is a particular tell that comes over politicians when the ground begins to shift beneath them. They start rewriting history, recasting their own choices as other people’s conspiracies, and appointing themselves the wronged party. Anwar Ibrahim has made an art of it — always the reformer in his own telling, never the man responsible.

[2] Consider his explanation for the recent Johor contest. It was, he suggested, precipitated by people agitating to free Najib Razak from prison.[1] It is a neat story, save for one inconvenient fact: it was Anwar who set the machinery of Najib’s pardon in motion.[2] It was he who told us Najib deserved leniency on account of his service and contributions to the country.[3]  Having lit the fuse, he now professes shock at the explosion. 

[3] On the Johor campaign trail, Anwar also declared that he did not want anyone tainted with corruption to become leaders.[4] It is a curious line, given that he appointed Zahid Hamidi as his deputy prime minister – even though he was, at the time, on trial for criminal breach of trust, graft and money laundering. Subsequently, all the 47 charges against him were inexplicably withdrawn, despite the trial judge’s earlier ruling that a prima facie case had been established and that he must enter his defence. [5]

[4] It is hard to escape the impression that a deal was done – a reprieve for Zahid in exchange for his support in propping up Anwar’s government. In January 2026 the Attorney-General’s Chambers declared it would take no further action, closing the case for good and placing it beyond the reach of any court – a decision the Bar has denounced as irrational and against the public interest, and is currently challenging.[6]

[5] Now that Zahid has turned on him, Anwar reaches for the moral high ground. But he is only reaping what he sowed – betrayed by the very man he rescued from oblivion – and has no one to blame but himself. 

[6] He casts himself, too, as a scourge of graft – the very reason, he says, that certain parties are so eager to be rid of him. But a leader serious about corruption does not entrust the fight against it to someone like Azam Baki, a controversial figure as ever there was. He sat on his hands over allegations of graft in Sabah and looked past a host of other serious cases besides. Anwar not only failed to properly investigate him over allegations of impropriety but granted him extension after extension and then rewarded him with a perch on the NFCC advisory board. In the eyes of many Malaysians, Anwar no longer has any credibility on the issue.

[7] He also claimed that certain parties were plotting his downfall.[7] We have heard that before too. The most recent – a plot supposedly hatched by Daim’s widow – was trailed with a flurry of statements, one of them to Parliament, before the whole affair quietly evaporated.[8] He has cried wolf once too often to be taken seriously.

[8] How Anwar wishes to be remembered tells you much about how little he grasps his own predicament: a leader, he says, who loved the people and was loved by them in return.[9] There is something almost poignant in the hope – for it was a hope many of us once shared. We wanted him to succeed; we wanted to believe that the long years of struggle had led somewhere. Yet poll after poll now tells the same quiet story. He has failed to win the Malay ground he courted so assiduously, and the non-Malay voters who once placed such faith in him have drifted away, disillusioned. In the end, one is left to wonder who remains to love him at all.

[9] The past has a way of catching up. The mask is slipping. And the man beneath it looks nothing like the reformer he promised to be.

[Dennis Ignatius |Kuala Lumpur |08 July 2026]

[1] ‘Free Najib’ group dragged PH into Johor election, says Anwar |FMT |06 July 2026

[2] Anwar: ‘I submitted Najib’s royal pardon application for consideration’ |NST | 10 Dec 2024

[3] Anwar: Najib’s service, contributions to country among basis for sentence ‘discount’ |Focus Malaysia |05 Feb 2024

[4] Anwar says only wants non-corrupt as leaders |Malaysiakini | 06 July 2026

[5] Zahid’s corruption charges, from prima facie to discharge |MalaysiaNow | 04 Sept 2023

[6] AG seeks to reverse ruling allowing Malaysian Bar to challenge Zahid’s DNAA |FMT |05 June 2026

[7] Anwar: Certain political parties uneasy over my firm anti-corruption stance |NST |05 July 2026

[8] Anwar: Plot to overthrow govt involves prominent Zionists |NST |03 March 2026

[9] Johor polls: Anwar wants to be remembered as a PM loved by all |The Star |04 July 2026

Article 3 Is Not A Licence To Discriminate And Intimidate

[1] The Selangor state government recently revised its guidelines on non-Muslim places of worship, removing some of its most discriminatory regulations. It was long overdue. 

[2] As expected, PAS and various Muslim NGOs were quick to protest. PAS information chief Fadhli Shaari invoked Article 3 — Islam as the religion of the Federation — to justify his opposition. Others piled on: Why provide land for non-Muslim houses of worship when Islamic institutions aren’t given equal emphasis? Why prioritise this when affordable housing, road congestion and lack of schools remain unresolved? 

[3] These objections are risible — and contemptuous of the Constitution itself. What those invoking Article 3 conveniently ignore is that the very same article which declares Islam the religion of the Federation immediately adds: “but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.” Article 11 reinforces this further, explicitly guaranteeing freedom of religion — including the right to build houses of worship. Read together, Articles 3 and 11 make one thing abundantly clear: the recognition of Islam as the religion of the Federation was never intended — and cannot be used — as a constitutional basis for discriminating against, or subordinating, other faiths.

[4] The Constitution treats all religions with respect, dignity and equal standing before the law. Anyone who uses Article 3 to harass non-Muslim communities, obstruct the building of temples and churches, or brand minority faiths as undeserving of government support is not defending the Constitution — they are betraying it. It is bigotry dressed up in legal language.

[5] As well, the claim that Islamic institutions are neglected is both disingenuous and misleading. The federal government alone allocated RM2.6 billion for Islamic development in Budget 2026 — the highest in history — with state religious department budgets adding significantly more. Non-Muslim religious institutions receive no equivalent budget line; only sporadic, discretionary allocations. The disparity is a matter of public record, and those making the neglect argument know it, but facts are inconvenient when the goal is to incite.

[6] As for affordable housing, road congestion and lack of schools — these are legitimate concerns but they have nothing to do with whether non-Muslims are entitled to build houses of worship. The Constitution does not require minorities to wait until every other policy problem is resolved before non-Muslim religious groups can be treated with fairness and dignity.

[7] Article 3 does not make Malaysia an Islamic state, however often the claim is repeated. As Tunku Abdul Rahman declared during the constitutional debates in 1958: “This country is not an Islamic state as it is generally understood; we merely provided that Islam shall be the official religion of the State.” That was the constitutional understanding of Malaysia’s founding generation and remained the official position of the first three prime ministers. Mahathir’s later Islamic state declaration may have been politically expedient but remains constitutionally irrelevant.

[8] Fadhli also asks what the “pressing need” is for Selangor’s revised guidelines. The answer is obvious to anyone who has watched non-Muslim communities spend years — sometimes decades — applying to build a temple or a church, only to be denied, delayed or shouted down. The Church of the Divine Mercy in Shah Alam waited nearly three decades, from its initial land application in 1977 to its opening in 2005 — a saga of bureaucratic obstruction, repeated site changes and organised opposition. It is not an isolated case. It is the norm.

[9] The Selangor guidelines are not an attack on Islam. No mosque is being demolished. No Muslim right is being curtailed. The state is doing its job: governing for all its citizens, not just some of them. That this is even controversial tells you how far things have gone.

[10] The threat to religious freedom is real and growing. It is rooted in a deep-seated intolerance towards other faiths that has been allowed to fester for decades and is now reflected in the conduct of public institutions. Radical preachers and activists routinely demean other religions with impunity, while the authorities who would act swiftly if the target were Islam look the other way. The enforced disappearance of Pastor Raymond Koh and others remains a chilling reminder of how vulnerable religious minorities have become. These are not isolated abuses. They are the consequence of a sustained distortion of the Constitution to legitimise discrimination and unequal treatment. If Article 3 continues to be weaponised against the very religious freedoms the Constitution was designed to protect, it is not only non-Muslims who will lose. It is the Constitution itself – and with it, the idea of Malaysia as a nation governed by law rather than prejudice.

Dennis Ignatius | Kuala Lumpur | Monday 29 June 2026

The People Who Broke Malaysia, or the People Trying to Fix It

[1] A columnist recently warned that if non-Malays abandon Pakatan Harapan for Parti Bersama, the result could be an all-Malay government — and that, the argument goes, would be catastrophic for non-Malays. The politics of race and religion would be entrenched. Islamisation would accelerate. Marginalisation would deepen. Discrimination would go unchallenged. 

[2] In other words, non-Malays must bite their lips, bury their disappointments, ignore the egregious failures and betrayals of the PH leadership, and vote for them anyway — because the alternative is worse. It is a cynical, fear-driven argument. And it doesn’t hold up.

[3] In practice, regardless of whether the government is all-Malay or multiracial, the outcome for non-Malays has always been the same: the same policies, the same marginalisation, the same discrimination. The Ketuanan Melayu power structure ensures that even when a non-Malay party is part of the government it is not permitted to share power in any meaningful way. It is there to maintain the fiction of multiracial governance, nothing more. What has the DAP, for example ––currently the biggest single bloc in the unity government –– actually delivered for non-Malays? 

[4] The same is true on religious issues. PH apologists are fond of stoking fears about the so-called green wave and the extremist agenda of PAS. What often goes unmentioned is that Anwar has done more to advance Malaysia’s drift toward an Islamic state than perhaps any prime minister before him. Under his watch, the Islamic bureaucracy has tightened its grip on national life, religious conservatism has deepened, and tolerance for diversity has narrowed. Non-Muslims have never been more marginalised. And this is happening not under an overtly Malay-Muslim nationalist government but under one that markets itself as multiracial. Warning about what PAS might do rings hollow when PH is already doing it for them.

[5] GE16 will also be a referendum on corruption. The old established parties now vying for our vote have, one way or another, tolerated, turned a blind eye to, excused, or participated in the vast system of corruption that has bled this country dry for decades. They are not innocent bystanders. They are complicit, by commission or omission. Billions have been stolen — money that could have built hospitals, funded schools, raised wages, and given millions a better life. Malaysia should be far more prosperous than it is. Instead, too many citizens depend on handouts simply to survive. And yet these same politicians now present themselves as anti-corruption crusaders, champions of accountability and good governance. They are not the solution. They are the problem. Can we really afford to give them another five years?

[6] They say Bersama is too small to matter — but that’s for us to decide. If enough Malaysians join, contribute, campaign, and vote, Bersama can become a real political force. Even a few dozen seats would be enough to change the calculus of Malaysian politics. As a strong, principled opposition — something Malaysia has not had in a long time — they can demand accountability, expose corruption, and fight for policies that serve all Malaysians, regardless of race or religion. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[7] The political landscape heading into GE16 is more fluid than it has been in years. Old assumptions may no longer hold. Millions of young Malaysians will be voting for the first time. No one knows which way the tide will turn — but the hunger for real change is unmistakable, and it is growing.

[8] In the end, the real choice is not a racial one — between an all-Malay government and a multiracial one. It is between the parties that broke this country and the one trying to fix it. Between more of the same — the plunder, the racism, the slow decay — and the chance, however uncertain, of a new beginning. The old framework has failed us. It is time to disrupt it. Support Bersama. Give them the chance to prove themselves. If they deliver, keep backing them. If they don’t, hold them to account. That is how you fix a broken political system. One election at a time.

[Dennis Ignatius |Kuala Lumpur |Monday, 22 June 2026]

Bersama Is Malaysia’s Best Hope Now

[1] As we head into another election cycle, many voters feel weary, frustrated, and close to despair. Public faith in the political system has all but evaporated. Whichever party wins, the outcome feels depressingly familiar: grand promises, unmet expectations, and a country often worse off than before. Corruption remains rampant. Cronyism flourishes. Injustice persists. Meanwhile, life remains a struggle for all too many.

[2] Anwar Ibrahim is but the latest in a long line of leaders promising hope but leaving only disappointment. I decided some time ago that if the next election offered nothing but the same discredited faces, I would not vote. Participating in a futile exercise makes a mockery of democracy.

[3] For some time now, voters have felt politically trapped, having to always choose between the lesser of two or three evils – Pakatan Harapan, Barisan Nasional or Perikatan Nasional. That is a terrible situation to be in because it means that no matter who wins, you still end up with evil.

[4] Which is why Parti Bersama is drawing attention. Rafizi and Nik Nazmi are building something genuinely different: a party that funds itself through ordinary citizens, recruits candidates openly, and treats Malaysians as citizens to be served rather than ethnic blocs to be exploited. It is a conscious repudiation of the backroom deals, patronage networks, and money politics that have corrupted Malaysian governance for decades. Unlike parties chasing shortcuts to power, they are building a real grassroots movement for change. 

[5] Their platform reflects this too — less preoccupied with race and religion than with building a prosperous, inclusive, and just society. Social security reform, migrant labour policy, institutional accountability, democratic reform — these have been promised before and quietly shelved. Bersama seems intent on making them the centre of its politics, not the footnote.

[6] Both men have deep roots in the Reformasi movement. It has defined their adult lives and their political careers. They know what the movement stood for — and what it has become. Walking away from PKR couldn’t have been easy. That they did it anyway speaks of an abiding commitment to what Reformasi was always meant to be. They also represent the generational change the country needs — younger, widely respected, and unburdened by the baggage that has made so many of their predecessors objects of disdain, if not contempt.

[7] Critics have noted that both men served as ministers in Anwar’s cabinet without particular distinction, and that Rafizi moved against Anwar only after losing a party election. These are fair points. But they miss something important. Rafizi and Nik Nazmi walked away from power, patronage, and the comfort of incumbency to build something from scratch — on principle, with a lot of their own money, without guaranteed reward. That is not the behaviour of opportunists but people who are passionate about their cause.

[8] I have been disappointed before. I backed Mahathir in GE14 and Anwar in GE15, and came to regret both. So I understand the scepticism. Yes, Bersama is untested. Yes, Rafizi and Nik Nazmi have little record to run on. Yes, I may end up adding their names to my long list of political regrets.

[9] But what exactly is the safe choice? BN? PN? PH? We have tested all of them and found them wanting. The risk isn’t in supporting Bersama. The risk is in telling ourselves that the same corrupt, incompetent, dishonest or bigoted politicians will somehow do better the next time around. That is not caution. That is delusion.

[10] There is something else. Twenty-five thousand Malaysians — among them, by most accounts, a majority of Malays — signed up within days of Bersama’s launch. Many had never joined a political party before. The numbers suggest something simple: a public tired of being managed, frightened, and taken for granted. That is not a data point. That is the sound of a country that has not given up on itself, of a country coming alive again because, finally, there’s an alternative.

[11] The case for Bersama is clear: they are the only party that is trying to do politics differently, and Malaysia desperately needs politics done differently. They have the vision, the integrity, and the courage to build something our country has never had — a politics of principle over patronage, of citizens over cronies, of the future over the past. Back them. Hold them to their promises. And give our country the chance it deserves. For the first time in a long time, something better is possible. Do not let this moment pass.

[Dennis Ignatius |Kuala Lumpur | Tuesday,  16 June 2026]